Starinieri Unemployment Comp. Case

Starinieri Unemployment Comp. Case

Opinion

 [*257]   [**726]  The issue presented by this appeal is whether one who is a shareholder, director and officer of a closelyheld corporation is eligible for unemployment compensation benefits upon the cessation of business by that corporation due to voluntary bankruptcy proceedings. The Bureau of Employment Security held not, and so denied benefits to claimant-appellant. This disposition was affirmed in successive appeals to a referee, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review and the Superior Court.  [***2]  Starinieri Unemployment Compensation Case, 216 Pa. Superior Ct. 798, 261 A. 2d 116 (1970). We granted allocatur.

The undisputed facts are as follows: Delaware Valley Electronic Supply Company was a Pennsylvania  [*258]  corporation having  [**727]  outstanding a total of forty shares of capital stock. At the time it ceased doing business, appellant owned fifteen shares; the other twenty-five shares were owned by three persons not related to appellant. ¹ Each of the shareholders was a director of the corporation. Burton Seller, owner of sixteen shares, was President. Appellant was the Secretary-Treasurer and acted as the executive manager of the company. His salary was $ 140 per week. The termination of appellant's employment with Delaware Valley was a result of a voluntary petition in bankruptcy filed by the company, precipitated when a creditor (the ex-wife of the President) obtained a $ 30,000 judgment against the company and had the doors padlocked.

 [***3]  Section 402 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P. L. (1937) 2897, § 402, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802, provides, "[A]n employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -- (h) In which he is engaged in self-employment. . . ." Thus, a self-employed person who becomes an "unemployed businessman" is ineligible to receive unemployment compensation. E.g., Freas Unemployment Compensation Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 150, 191 A. 2d 740 (1963). See, also, Annot., 65 A.L.R. 2d 1182 (1959). ] The Unemployment Compensation Law was not enacted to compensate individuals who fail in their business ventures and become unemployed businessmen. Dawkins Unemployment Compensation Case, 358 Pa. 224, 56 A. 2d 254 (1948). The Board concluded that appellant was a self-employed "businessman," as opposed to a "worker" and, therefore, declared him ineligible for benefits. Majority ownership of the  [*259]  stock, it held, was not a prerequisite to the status of "businessman"; one who through ownership of stock and his position in the corporation exercises a "substantial degree of control" over its operation qualifies as such.

While [***4]  recognizing a series of Superior Court decisions, following Dawkins, which denied benefits to claimants in a control position, ² the appellant correctly notes that each of those claimants had greater than 50% control in the failing company. However, benefits were denied in Freas Unemployment Compensation Case, 201 Pa. Superior Ct. 150, 191 A. 2d 740 (1963), and Roccograndi Unemployment Compensation Case, 197 Pa. Superior Ct. 372, 178 A. 2d 786 (1962), even though each claimant owned less than 50% of the stock in the failing company. Basing his argument on Section 4(x) (10) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P. L. (1937) 2897, § 4(x) (10), as amended, 43 P.S. § 753(x) (10), ³ appellant attempts to limit the denial of benefits under Freas and Roccograndi to situations where  [*260]  a minority shareholder-employee is related to other claimants and the percentage of ownership of all claimants exceeds  [**728]  50%. We disagree.  Neither opinion makes any reference to the definition of wages under the Unemployment Compensation Law. The turning point of these opinions was the collective percentage of the [***5]  claimants' ownership of the corporation rather than the blood relationship between the claimants. While these opinions are not binding upon this Court, they do cover this situation and we believe they are correct.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.